= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
crazy88 comments on Decision theory and "winning" - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (33)
I think the argument is a little more technical than that. This argument asserts that decision theory is about decisions, and the thing that determines whether you win at Newcomb's is something other than a decision. It still might be good to have a way to win at Newcomb's, but on this view that thing will not be a decision theory.
The question being asked to the decision theory is "what is the best decision?" and CDT says it's taking both boxes. Leaving $1,000 on the table is not helpful. Being the sort of person who would leave $1,000 on the table happens to be helpful in this case, but nobody asked CDT "What sort of person should I be?". If you frame that question as a decision, like "There's a Newcomb's tournament coming up; which decision should you precommit to?" then CDT will precommit to 1-boxing, even though if you ask it at the time of the decision, it will still say that absent the precommitment it would prefer to also have the $1,000.
Your comment captures the point well but I think this line is a little misleading. The proponent of CDT can say that a decision theory (held timelessly, including before the boxes were filled) might make you win at NP but they will say that decision theory is about making optimal decisions not about choosing optimal decision theories (though of course, the decision about which decision theory to follow is one possible decision and, the proponent of CDT will say, it is a decision that CDT handles correctly).